Judging from the different justices’ comments on the oral arguments over Washington, D.C.’s gun ban, it appears that the Supreme Court will rule that the 2nd Amendment does indeed give individuals and not just corporate militias the right to keep firearms.
The linked article said that the ruling might provide for some regulation, such as of military weapons such as machine guns. But if the Constitution specifies the role of individual ownership of weapons for militias, shouldn’t that apply specifically to military weapons? And doesn’t the 2nd Amendment amount to a constitutional requirement for local militias, of local civilians keeping weapons in their home so they can, if needed, be organized into a local defense or law enforcement force? That’s basically what Switzerland does. And 18th century America. The right should indeed inhere with individuals, but what should we do with the militia provision?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In